Is the Supreme Court confirmation process a 'vapid and hollow charade'?

Supreme Court nominee Elena is all but certain to be confirmed after her hearings this week. As people are fond of asking during this process, are these confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee a useful exercise? Or are they, as E.J. Dionne memorably dubbed them, "occasionally biting but essentially meaningless political theater"?

Kagan herself, years ago, described the process as a "vapid and hollow charade," remarks she had to answer for, as some senators criticized her for proving herself right by offering evasive answers.

Criticizing Senate confirmation hearings as empty charades at least puts Kagan in company with Chief Justice John Roberts, who earlier this year described the process as "a vehicle for (senators) to make statements about what is important to them."

Politico's Roger Simon said Kagan's "vapid and hollow" description accurately predicted what was going to happen during her confirmation. He noted the blandness of her opening statement:

"I will make no pledges this week other than this one, that if confirmed, I will remember and abide by all these lessons: I will listen hard, to every party before the court and to each of my colleagues. I will work hard. And I will do my best to consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle, and in accordance with law."

He also mentioned the silliness of Wisconsin Democrat Ed Kohl's opening question:

"Please tell us why you want to serve on the Supreme Court and what excites you about the job."

OK, show of hands: Did he come up with that himself or did his staff have to write it for him?

One was left wondering if the public would not be better served by forcing nominees to appear on "Meet the Press," "Face the Nation" and "This Week" -- or at the very least "Larry King Live" and "The View" -- instead of going through the current process.

The Supreme Court is divided into two blocs, as hostile and immutable as NATO and the Warsaw Pact. In the middle of the two blocs sits Anthony Kennedy, a Yugoslavia-like figure who tilts toward one bloc but has demonstrated significant independence. When and how the delicate balance of power will be broken rests upon two questions: First, will one of the four liberals get sick and die during a Republican presidency before one of the four conservatives gets sick and dies during a Democratic presidency? More specifically, during which party's control of the White House will Kennedy retire or get sick and die? Upon these questions vast swaths of American law hinge.